How are we answering the call to heal?

I once learned that the words “heal” and “cure” mean different things in the New Testament.  Though today’s speech interchanges these terms as synonyms, they meant distinctly different things in Jesus’ time.   People who were “cured” got rid of their physical afflictions.  People who were “healed” became at peace about their physical or mental afflictions. 

A person can be both healed and cured of something.  But some people are physically cured without being healed such as those cured of tragic illnesses who forever carry bitterness about the ordeal.   Also, people can be healed without being physically cured such as someone who dies from a horrific illness but does so with internal peace. 

Some people are never cured or healed.   For example, sexual abuse victims’ physical violations cannot be undone.  Therefore, victims cannot be “cured” from their physical experience.  Many never experience healing from the traumatic emotional violation either.  Likewise, alcoholics are never cured of their physical addiction even if they stop drinking.  Active and recovering alcoholics who never come to peace with their underlying self-esteem and insecurity issues are also never cured or healed.

Jesus both cured and healed people, and he instructed his apostles to do likewise (MT 10:5-8).  In Luke 9:49 we see scriptural evidence that the apostles misplaced the emphasis of this commissioning, mistaking it as an exclusive right.  In this passage John proudly reports to Jesus that he and the other apostles have stopped another from casting out demons (i.e., healing) because the person doing the healing was not of their ilk.  Jesus’ response rebuking the apostles indicates Jesus was less fixated on the “who” than the “what” when it comes to healing.  Perhaps one can take from this incident that all disciples carry a responsibility to heal.  It is far more important that acts of healing occur than who performs them.

We sit at a troublesome intersection in the church.  The world and church are in need of much healing.  World and church populations continue to grow while numbers of apostles (ordained church leaders) shrink.  In business terms, healing demand is high; supply of apostolic healers is low.  Further complicating the imbalance are some underlying circumstances that impair apostles’ healing ministry.  Finally, church leaders try to prevent unapproved healers from filling the gap.

One such underlying circumstance impacting apostolic healing ministry is apostles’ far higher than average alcoholism rate.  Some of these incurable alcoholics have healed by successfully addressing their base insecurities and unhappiness.  Many have not, including some who incorrectly think they have.  They are wounded and broken.  Their addiction propagates additional deep wounds through unhealthy addictive behaviors and breeding rampant codependency.   Codependency inflicts even more wounds.   Though alcoholic apostles help some individuals heal, as a whole culture, apostles’ alcoholic wounds are breeding more wounds than healing.  This is because the culture remains unacknowledged and unaddressed in favor of secretly addressing some individual instances.    

Some apostles have sexually molested seminarians, teens or children.   They have inflicted extremely difficult to heal wounds upon their victims, the church-at-large, and society.  Though some apostles like Fr. Thomas Doyle passionately try to heal wounds inflicted by apostles via abuse, most in their guilt or enabling codependency deepen the wounds.  Almost daily reports indicate this issue too remains unaddressed despite lip service to the contrary.  

The church is afflicted with wounded and broken apostles who in turn wound and afflict.  Yet, the church looks to these same people to heal.  Is this possible?

Fr. Henri Nouwen wrote a book about the value of a “Wounded Healer” claiming a wounded healer has more compassion and, therefore, is a more effective healer.   I think a premise of Nouwen’s statement is that wounded healers acknowledge their brokenness.  By openly admitting and addressing their brokenness, wounded healers more peacefully interact with truth, a required element of authentic healing versus inauthentic whitewashing or outright denial. 

Benedict XVI does not seem to be a healer, wounded or otherwise.  He has done much to contribute to the affliction of clergy sexual abuse and little if anything to contribute to its healing.  He has done little to nothing to address the enabling culture in an effective way.  Occasionally he has met with clergy sex abuse victims presumably towards healing but he still seems more focused on moving beyond the scandal than on healing or addressing systemic causes.  Some days I half expect him to issue a papal decree declaring the issue resolved and barring further discussion of the topic, much like he has done for the unhealed wound of sexual inequality in the church. However, healing and forgiveness occur at the pace of the victim, not at the dictates of a hierarchy impatient to move beyond unpleasant issues.

I am unaware of Benedict XVI acknowledging or meeting with victims of clergy substance or power abuses.  These abuses mostly go unacknowledged and unaddressed, or are outright defended as the right of apostles to behave thusly.  There seems to be greater focus on preventing the wrong type of “who” from ministering than on ministry, leaving people wanting rather than ordain women or married men and blocking unapproved laity from ministry. 

This mindset propagates throughout the hierarchy.  I see little evidence of individual or systemic acknowledgement of the brokenness caused by clergy who abuse substances, people, or power.  I see a desire by ordained and laity to ignore rather than acknowledge.  I see avoidance of unpleasant truths.  I see token gestures towards healing only when every route to escape truth is blocked. 

Yet Jesus instructs us to heal.  If the apostles are too wounded to lead the church through healing, what is the responsibility of the laity in this regard?  Is it possible for the church to heal without sustained, truthful, open acknowledgement of abuses by ordained and laity?  Do we contribute to healing or to inflicting wounds?  Are clergy and laity capable of being wounded healers?  

Quite simply, Jesus calls us all to the action of healing.  How are we answering the call?

Side note:  Sorry for the lag in publishing.  I've been doing a lot of international travel for work.  I'll try to be more timely.

Harassment and Bullying in the Church

Harassment and bullying are not tolerated in most secular jobs and societies.  Many secular governments and institutions enact laws and rules not only protecting people from harassment and bullying but giving recourse for victims and society to hold aggressors accountable.  This is true whether the aggressor is an individual, group, or official.

Since church leaders promote themselves as superior purveyors of truth and justice, one might expect the church to be less tolerant of harassment and bullying behaviors than secular society.  However, Canon Law barely addresses the topic other than in cases where someone was coerced into receiving a sacrament.  Quite frankly, laypeople can be harassed or bullied because Canon Law grants few rights to laypeople and little to no recourse for holding clergy accountable when bullying occurs.   

In addition to the reduced rights Canon Law hierarchically affords laypeople, Canon Law interpretations further enable harassment and bullying because they usually favor protecting the images of clergy and the institution over laypeople’s dignity.  This occurs for a few reasons:

1.  Clergy serve as judges in cases of Canon Law.

2.  Clergy acting as judges almost universally incorrectly perform a mental substitution of the word “hierarchy” for the word “church” when it appears in Canon Law rather than correctly interpreting it as “the people of God”.

3.  Many clergy such as Pope Benedict have transformed the apostolic duty to serve the least among us into a superiority complex, and perverted leadership into manipulation - believing clergy need to manipulate “simple minded” laypeople of “simple faith” “for their own good and salvation”. 

However, manipulation is a form of harassment and bullying, as is coercion.  These tactics combined with power imbalance induce stress and exasperate a person so as to control their behavior or get rid of them if they can’t be controlled. Threats, humiliation, fear, deception, lies, ignoring, ostracizing, stalling, or evasion to control people or situations all constitute harassment and bullying. Sometimes bullies try to make the victim seem like the bully which in itself is a bullying tactic. 

In the case of coercion, aggressors present themselves as allies of the victim and then work to neutralize the victim's critical thinking skills.  Consequently, victims gradually lose their decision-making abilities to exercise informed consent or dissent and instead complacently follow the group’s ideological dictates, conditioned by fears of rejection, exclusion, humiliation, excommunication, or damnation.

Any of these tactics place and maintain the victim in a state of disequilibrium.  Victims often remain silent about the abuse because the abuser holds some form of power over them, or successfully undermines their confidence or credibility.  By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, people who benefit from these behaviors often evade exposure, accountability or prosecution.  Canon Law provides little to no protection, support or recourse for victims and actually promotes silence in the interest of preserving public image.  However, harassment and bullying destroy church unity. 

Stopping harassment, bullying, manipulation or coercion requires recognizing the abuse, naming it, rejecting it and exposing it.  Since the people are the church, if we want the church to be intolerant of harassment and bullying, we must collectively reject it in our institution and its leaders.

In the spirit of educating people so that they can be aware of and name abuse, at the end of this article I provide some examples of harassment, bullying, manipulation and coercion that I’ve witnessed in the church.  I have noted some examples where Canon Law actually promotes or allows such tactics to highlight the systemic support Canon Law provides individual abusers within the church.  Individual and group codependent behavior combined with Canon Law and governing structures enable these types of harassment to occur.  Until laypeople recognize and reject the behaviors en masse, only superficial corrections or improvements will occur.

Jesus did not commit, condone or permit harassment and bullying.  He actually was a victim of these behaviors because he confronted religious bullies.  Do we do likewise? 

What harassment and bullying do we tolerate in the church?  Why?  How do we enable or contribute to such behaviors?  What will we do to reject harassment and bullying in the church?  Do we avoid exposing and rejecting abuses or supporting victims so as to maintain our stature, esteem or favorite ministerial duties within the church? 

*************************************************

DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES OF HARASSMENT AND BULLYING

Harassment and bullying DOES NOT include persistently pursuing someone to perform tasks or duties reasonably associated with that person’s job or role.  I mention this first because a pastor or other church leader might incorrectly try to label as “a bully” a parishioner who persistently pursues them to address a parish or church concern.  Addressing parish and church concerns is a normal and reasonable duty to expect of church leaders.  Thus someone persistently expecting church leaders to do this is not a bully.  However, a leader’s evasion of duty is harassment and it is bullying if leaders label as “a bully” someone who expects them to perform their duties.  Under Canon Law, the layperson has a right to question when this occurs but no recourse if their questions remain unanswered.

Harassment and bullying include:

Deliberate insults, unsubstantiated criticism, ridicule, slandering or maligning the person or the person’s family

Example: A priest or parishioner calls a person “dissenter”, “out of communion” or “non-Catholic”, or even makes fun of the way the person participates at Mass.  The goal is to undermine confidence and credibility.  An excellent example of this occurred last week when an anonymous person wrote a comment in this blog inaccurately calling me “out of communion with the church” and ridiculing my singing at Mass.  The anonymous nature of the comment added yet another dimension to the bullying. 

·         Discussions or supervision of the person without his/her knowledge. Though this practice is de-humanizing and not acceptable in most secular jobs, Canon Law explicitly permits it.

Example: A Director of Religious Education discusses “issues” about a catechist with the pastor or diocesan personnel without the catechist’s knowledge.  A parishioner is discussed at parish staff or parish council meetings without their knowledge.

·         Administrative penalties which are suddenly directed against an individual without any objective cause, explanation or effort at jointly validating or solving underlying problems. Penalties could be removal from office or dismissal from duties.  This often results after secret discussions have occurred.  The victim is “accused”, “tried”, “convicted” and “sentenced” without knowing the charges, being able to refute or defend against them, or having the opportunity to address valid concerns.  This allows the harassers to avoid addressing facts or opinions contrary to theirs. Canon Law permits non-ordained people to be treated this way because Canon Law says laypeople don’t have a right to any ministerial position.  Thus a layperson can be dismissed from any paid or volunteer position at the whim of clergy without due process or explanation.

Example: Continuing the example from above, the catechist is barred from all teaching ministries but had no knowledge that there was an issue.  She is denied an opportunity to understand the concerns or address them because the desired effect is to eliminate her, not to have everyone in the situation learn and grow.  

·         Deliberately withholding information, supplying false information or spreading rumors Canon Law permits this tactic.  It asserts that since laypeople don’t have a right to any ministerial position they don’t have a right to the human dignity of an honest explanation for dismissal.  Canon Law explicitly calls for image management which inspires many church leaders to use this bullying tactic without any tinge of remorse.  However, this tactic violates one of the Ten Commandments – that of bearing false witness.  Thus, the rampant practice of this tactic indicates a cultural acceptance of favoring human-made Canon Law that permits deception, over God’s Commandment that demands truth. 

Example: The church offers countless examples of this.  Bishops have masterfully used this tactic covering up sexual abuse and moving sex offenders.  However this occurs in many other ways too including by parish staff members.  The parish receptionist tells a parishioner that “Fr. is out” when he is in his office but just doesn’t want to deal with this person.  Fr. tells someone they must relinquish a volunteer position “for their humility” when Fr. really just doesn’t want to deal with the person.  A bishop orders a pastor to sanction a parishioner but forbids the pastor from telling the parishioner why.  The list is seemingly endless.

The Archbishop of Detroit recently provided a public example of this when he warned people away from the American Catholic Conference by spreading false information about the event. Cardinal Rigali likewise misinformed the public earlier this year when he said that no priests accused of sexual misconduct were active in ministry when dozens of them were. 

All of these are not only examples of bullying and harassment, but also of breaking a Commandment.

·         Isolating, ostracizing, boycotting, dismissing or disregarding the victim. This tactic is being used increasingly, especially by orthodox and conservative individuals, groups and clergy.  It often coincides with the previous tactic of withholding information.   

Example: Theologians are censured and barred without explanation.  Their financial livelihood is impaired severely.  People are ex-communicated.  Even those remaining in full communion but with whom the orthodox crowd disagree suffer isolation, or elimination from church ministries and groups.  Clergy do not acknowledge or respond to parishioners’ communications.  Parishioners are barred from church sponsored ministries.  A parishioner suffers “the silent treatment” from parish staff or clergy.  The list is long.  

·         Intimidation, persecution and threats of persecution – In the church threats of excommunication, censure and dismissal are common tools for trying to control behavior.  Excommunication tries to threaten people with eternal damnation, an especially cruel form of bullying.  These tactics are permitted under Canon Law.

Example:  People supporting female ordinations are threatened with excommunication.  A church employee is forced to resign for running a progressive Catholic website.  A bishop is dismissed for suggesting dialogue within the church on certain topics.  People lose or fear losing their jobs and livelihoods for speaking their conscience.  

·         Humiliation, or repeated unsubstantiated negative remarks, criticism or sarcasm – These are permitted in the treatment of lay people by clergy because there is no recourse for those who suffer this treatment.  Sadly, ill-formed clergy mistake humiliation for humility.

Example: The pastor puts a Catholic school teacher on the spot during his homily with the intention of “putting her in her place”. An instrumentalist who regularly participates in music ministry is told in front of the choir that his gifts are not needed one day when he arrives for Mass. 

Manipulation tactics include:

Delay Tactics: “I know you are a trained and commissioned lector but I don't know when we can get you on the schedule.”  “I can’t do anything about that until we have a meeting”…but the meeting never gets scheduled.  

False Fronts: One justification is given as a front instead of the real, hidden, motive for the action or event.  “We just don’t need any more help right now” is given as an excuse when the real reason is, “We just don’t want you.”  Or, a bishop says, “we need to close this parish because of the priest shortage” when actually, “I want to close this parish because I can sell the property for a good price.”  The pastor tells the parish, “We need you to donate for a new roof” when the parish already has funds to pay for the new roof but the pastor wants more money. 

 

False Fronts and Possibilities: These are used to deceive by claiming that something is impossible giving false reasons when it is actually possible but the person just doesn’t want to permit it or discuss it. A pastor tells a parishioner, “I’d love to have you help in this ministry but the bishop won’t permit it” when actually the pastor just doesn’t want the person to help.  A bishop says, “I can’t help with this situation because the pastor has rights under Canon Law” when Canon Law actually gives the bishop the power to act but the bishop just doesn’t want to deal with the situation. A bishop claims, “Canon Law prevented me from removing that pedophile priest” when Canon Law allows a bishop to remove a pastor for any reason he deems valid but the bishop didn’t want to undertake the administrative effort to follow the process.  

Divide and Conquer: This uses division and conflict so that the different conflicting groups can be more easily manipulated or controlled.  For example, the pastor tells members of the conservative organization things about progressive parishioners and vice versa.  Both groups assume he is an ally but he is really working to keep the two groups divided and reliant upon him.  If they actually cooperated, they might be too strong of a force for him to control.

Divide and Dismiss: This tries to weaken complaints by dividing or dismissing the complaints.  Dividing the complaint pulls apart the argument and causes multiple people to deal with a fragment of the complaint when often complaints need to be addressed in the context of the entirety of circumstances.  This is used to discredit complaints or make them seem trivial.  A parishioner tries to show needs for systemic improvements in parish hospitality by assembling one example from each major ministry.  Rather than deal with the systemic issue, the pastor looks at each individual example as a stand-alone matter for each individual ministry lead to handle.  The single example, isolated from the full body of the complaint, looks trivial to each ministry head who is unaware of the totality of the examples.

Changing the Rules: The person in control arbitrarily changes operating rules to their benefit.  For example a pastor tells parents that school tuition is based upon tithing a set percentage of income but then imposes a minimum tuition amount after he realizes some families’ incomes are so low they will contribute below his desired target.  A parish employee is hired under an agreement that she will work for benefits instead of wages, but then is told she must take a part-time wage with no benefits.  The pastor used to allow girls to be altar servers but doesn't anymore.

Security and Authority: Sometimes authorities or organizations will provoke attacks on themselves so that they can obtain more power and authority to address the attack.  This is often used as a front to deal with legitimate complaints directed at them.  For example, Legionnaires for Christ did this when the atrocities of its founder sexually abusing children and seminarians were exposed.  They said it was an attack by the devil and members should redouble their efforts defending the organization and its leader.  When pedophile priests and their enabling bishops are pursued for accountability, they cry they are being persecuted and ask the faithful to rally around the guilty rather than address the problem. 

Administrative Maze and Complexity: This is used to discourage complaints.  This tactic occurs when a person creates nebulous or complex feedback procedures to discourage grievances or complaints. It is actually a direct result of Canon Law permitting laypeople to ask questions but granting them no recourse when their questions are ignored, or answered with false answers.  This is a common operating practice of many church leaders. 

Ambiguities: No answer is provided to questions at all, or answers are given as an ambiguity. Ambiguities give the illusion that an answer has been provided when one has not.  The pastor responds to an inquiring parishioner that he has read her expressed concerns.  This might satisfy the parishioner to assume that his reading the concerns means he is going to address them.  The hope is that providing an ambiguous response will get the person off his back so that he doesn't have to address her concerns.

Coercion tactics include:

1.  Establish control over the person's social environment, time and sources of social support by a system of rewards and punishments. Social isolation is promoted. Contact with persons who do not share group-approved attitudes is limited and set as a thing to fear.  Canon Law indirectly permits this tactic to occur.

2.  Prohibit non-conforming information and non-supporting opinions in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss.  Canon Law explicitly permits this tactic.

3.  Create a sense of powerlessness by undermining the person's self-confidence and judgment.  Canon Law indirectly permits this tactic to occur.

4.  Create strong aversive emotional arousal in the subject by using nonphysical punishments such as humiliation, loss of privilege, social isolation, social status changes, intense guilt, anxiety, manipulation and other techniques.  Canon Law both explicitly and implicitly allows these tactics in certain situations.

We belong together...

I write this on a plane flying from Madrid to Chicago, returning from a business trip.  Many Catholics returning from World Youth Day (WYD) are also on this flight.  I’m sitting behind kids from the Sioux City, Iowa diocese in the United States.  Some of them are wearing t-shirts that advertise their diocese and commemorate their WYD trip.  Their shirt backs sport a quote from St. Paul about building the faith.  The following words appear below that quote: “creed”, “prayer”, “sacraments and liturgy”, and “moral life”, suggesting that these are foundational elements to building the Roman Catholic faith. 

I had started to write wondering why they chose those words to represent the Catholic faith versus words like “service”, “care”, “forgiveness”, “hope”, or “love” - things that I find more foundational to the faith than the ones they chose.  I pondered who had a more correct understanding of Catholic faith or whether our different approaches mattered. 

Thoughts led to thoughts and I became fixated upon increasing divisions in the church, particularly between conservative, orthodox and progressive camps.  Each side tends to stand in judgment of the other based upon a belief that they have a superior grasp of truth.  Instead of building the Body of Christ, the Body is tearing itself apart based upon ideology.  Thus, “division caused by those who believe they build” was becoming my theme for this article.

However, I am listening to my iPod in random shuffle mode while I write and the Pat Benatar song, “We Belong”, just played.  I had understood that song to be about two individuals suffering interpersonal brokenness and a plea to retain a covenant-like commitment simply because they belong together.  That might even be the artist’s intended meaning; I don’t know.  But the intersection of hearing the words while I wrote about church division prompted a new interpretation that, in turn, altered my theme.  If you’re not familiar with the song, the lyrics are at the bottom of this article.

Opposing sides of church divisions think they express their concerns; “Many times they try to tell” the other side what’s wrong.  Each side professes to weep over the brokenness and blame the other side for their hurt and pain; they believe they more accurately understand God.  Some believe the pain would vanish if only those who disagree with them would either agree with them or leave. 

Many people do leave the church due to pain.  Others teeter on the brink.  They feel enough pain that they contemplate leaving but they remain because they think they’ve “invested too much” to abandon it.  Many remain in the church simply because being Catholic has “become a habit”, a recurrent unconscious pattern, repeating ritualistic practices detached from their conscious thoughts or actions.

Accusations fly as to who is worthy to bear the moniker “Catholic”, based upon various “doubts that complicate” people’s minds.  Some doubt infallibility doctrine, some doubt Jesus gave a damn about priests’ gender, some doubt Jesus would label any of God’s creation as intrinsically evil.  Others doubt Jesus really meant we should not judge, have detachment from worldly goods, care for the poor, ill, vulnerable and stranger in our midst, tell the truth, or passionately and unrelentingly forgive each other.  Some doubt clergy should be given special privileges and almost unbridled power.  Some doubt those who doubt have a right to doubt.

People build arguments to “prove” their version of “truth” is God’s version of truth.  But, do they “distort the facts”, sacrificing truth for being correct so as to resist growth and change, and thereby justify remaining in their comfort zones? 

Comfort zones seem appealing so people surround themselves with other like-minded individuals.  They can then delude themselves into thinking they promote unified harmony.  But harmony does not arise from singing in unison.  Harmony comes from taking different tones and assembling them together.  Harmony and unity require stepping out of the insulated comfort zone of a monotone society and embracing those singing different tunes.

As we approach the 10^th anniversary of the September 11^th tragedy, I recall times when people temporarily overcame division because everyone was ripped from their comfort zones.   With everyone forced to abandon comfort zones people seemed more capable to remember that at the heart of everything, “we can’t begin to know it; how much we really care” for and about each other. And for a short while, there was unity.

Whether we stay or leave the church, and though we might profess to shake the dust of the opposition from our feet, we are haunted by their faces and voices. That is because, as One Body, we do “belong together”, “for worse or for better”, “whatever we deny or embrace”, be that “creed”, “prayer”, “sacraments and liturgy”, and “moral life”, or “service”, “care”, “forgiveness”, “hope” and “love”.  Because we belong together, we cannot shake their dust from our feet.  Their dust is our dust.  Our feet are their feet. 

“Belonging together” is a key gospel message and a key way to build the faith.  Why then is unity so scarce?  Why is uniformity preferred over unity?  Why must it take massive destabilizing tragedies to realize unity is actually not that hard to achieve?  Is it any wonder people flee organized religions when they see such poor examples for togetherness practiced by those in organized religions?  No wonder Jesus preferred the company of outcasts to that of the religious leaders and pillars. 

“We Belong” – Pat Benatar

Verse One:

Many times I’ve tried to tell you

Many times I cried alone

Always I’m surprised how well you cut my feelings to the bone.

Don’t want to leave you really

I’ve invested too much time

To give you up that easy

To the doubts that complicate your mind

Refrain:

We belong to the light

We belong to the thunder

We belong to the sound of the words we’ve both fallen under

Whatever we deny or embrace

For worse or for better

We belong, we belong

We belong together

Verse Two:

Maybe it’s a sign of weakness

When I don’t know what to say

Maybe I just wouldn’t know

What to do with my strength anyway

Have we become a habit

Do we distort the facts

Now there’s no looking forward

Now there’s no turning back

When you say

(Refrain)

Verse Three:
Close your eyes and try to sleep now

Close your eyes and try to dream

Clear your mind and do your best

To try to wash the palette clean

We can’t begin to know it

How much we really care

I hear your voice inside me

I see your face everywhere

Still you say:

(Refrain)

Codependency and the church...

Codependency interweaves with abuse.  It is a form of addiction revolving around approval, usually from another addict, rather than around a substance or behavior.  Some codependents enable addicts.  Some codependents have other addictions as well.

Addictive and codependent behaviors conflict with and undermine gospel principles.  Yet according to Philip St. Romain, church leadership has a much higher than average number of addicts and codependents in ministry (Freedom from Codependency, 1991 Liguori Publications).   Therefore it’s important to understand codependency and its impact in the church.

First, what is it?  Codependency is a set of behaviors learned by people in abusive situations as a survival mechanism to deal with the instability and insanity of living with an addict.  Because children in addictive households universalize their early family experiences as “normal”, they are particularly vulnerable for becoming codependents.  They desperately seek the approval of their parents who cannot offer healthy love because their first love is to the addiction source.  “Love” is offered or refused as a controlling mechanism.  However the child does not know they are being manipulated or that this is unhealthy because this is their first and possibly only model of “love” in their formative years.

Children of addicts learn many codependent behaviors seeking parental approval and keeping familial peace.  They think they are responsible for things beyond their control.  As a result they learn to live in a constant “crisis mode” while caring for their addictive and/or codependent parents.  They are dependent upon their parents despite inability to provide a healthy nurturing environment so they are very threatened by external criticisms of their parents. 

Codependents learn to lie, compensate and cover for the person whose approval they seek rather than hold them accountable.  Loyalty is the highest virtue.

Codependents are hypersensitive.  They interpret many things as “rejection”.  They are defensive about discussing issues.  They try to deny or minimize problems rather than deal with them.  They attack people who try to discuss them.  They blame others for their failures or unhappiness.

They tend to develop alternate realities formed from delusional beliefs.  They are selfless to the point of losing themselves.  They often view themselves as victims or martyrs since these boost their self-esteem.  They like to hear things like, “I don’t know how you deal with so-and-so; you must be a saint.”

Codependents operate with numerous covert rules. Expectations are communicated indirectly if at all yet penalties for violating the rules are strictly enforced and usually severe.  Some of these rules include:

• No discussing problems - say “nice” things
• No discussing certain topics – there are many secrets
• No expression of feelings  - feelings should be “private”
• Use indirect communication such as a go-between to deliver messages or gather information
• Be “strong”, “correct”, “good” and “perfect” (with nebulous shifting definitions of what each of those mean)
• Don’t embarrass me – and just about everything embarrasses me
• Be giving and anything that doesn’t give in to me is “selfish”
• Do as I say and not as I do
• Don’t be playful – life is serious
• Don’t rock the boat but just be obedient

Above all, the codependent wants to project an image of perfection and harmony to the outside world.

What is the impact of prevalent codependency in church leadership?  Let’s start with the last statement first.  The human condition includes imperfection; this is expressed in church doctrine.  The church is human; it is the people of God.  This is also church doctrine.  Yet, codependent church leaders want to project an image of church perfection.  Doesn’t this violate the commandment about bearing false witness?  The church falsely presents itself as perfect in places where it is imperfect.  Institutional imperfections caused by human imperfections within the church cannot be fixed because codependent leaders refuse to acknowledge and address what is broken.

St. Romain also explains that the demands of priesthood share many parallels with codependent behaviors.  Thus, the priesthood attracts codependents accounting for their high percentage in church leadership.  Furthermore, he explains that emotionally healthy ordained and lay ministers struggle to avoid adopting codependent behaviors because they constantly interact with codependent colleagues and leaders.  Many succumb and unconsciously begin adopting codependent behaviors.  This trickles out to the laity and the same occurs there, especially as the laity value approval of clergy or confuse clergy approval with God’s approval.  Thus, codependency has become characteristic of church leadership and culture.

Here’s a simple seemingly innocuous example of ecclesial codependency: Father is habitually late for Mass but people look the other way because he doesn’t take criticism well.  Yet Father chastises others for shortcomings in their liturgical ministries.   This sends many unhealthy messages: “Do as I say and not as I do”, “You are not good or perfect enough”, “Don’t embarrass me”, “Don’t say things about me that aren’t nice but I can say things about you that aren’t nice”, etc…  If parishioners escalate to the bishop, a codependent bishop defends the priest because admitting the priest has human flaws shatters an illusion of perfection.

As we look at more serious issues such as pedophile priests, we start to understand why the bishops fail to address these situations properly.  It’s more important to lie and cover-up for the abusive priest than to deal with truth.  This is an “unpleasant thing” so don’t talk about it, hence the Vatican’s directives for handling pedophile issues with a code of secrecy.  Above all, the bishop wants to project an image of perfection and harmony.  As people force bishops to be accountable for handling pedophiles, they become angry because their alternate reality is threatened.  They begrudgingly comply but as minimally as possible.  They invest more effort in creating an illusion of fixing the problem than in actually fixing the problem. 

Both situations are manifestations of the same issue: power abuse stemming from codependency in church leadership impacting the general church population.  In both cases, those trying to foster healthy operating environments and healthy relationships are seen as threats.  Codependents attack those fostering healthy emotional and interpersonal practices instead of the abusers.  They push promoters of healthy interactions to the margins or try to bully them out of the group, protecting the abuser instead of the abused.

Examining the impact of codependent leaders on the micro and macro church is probably ample fodder for a doctoral dissertation rather than a blog entry.  But, I will leave you with a few questions.  What codependent practices have we consciously or unconsciously adopted as survival mechanisms in the church?  Is it more important to prophetically speak God’s truth or retain approval from church leaders?  Do I confuse God’s approval with church leaders’ approval?  Do I compromise my values to enable codependent clergy or lay ministers?  What might I do differently to better live gospel truths and love, rejecting codependency in the church?

Thanks to my cyber-friend, George for inspiration to write on this topic.

What is the best posture for receiving communion?

A local priest criticized the Second Vatican Council during a recent Sunday homily.  He disparaged Vatican II because he felt it ushered in the “new” without properly respecting the “old”.  His was one of the more publicly expressed dissents against these church teachings but it reflects a church leadership trend of steadily departing from Vatican II teachings. 

Another church leader dissenting from Vatican II-based norms is Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship.  He expressed his personal opinion that Catholics should resume the pre-Vatican II practice exclusively receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling rather than in hand while standing.  This was a personal not an official statement so it does not change reception norms.  However, it is confusing for the worldwide liturgy leader to say this. 

These types of dissent represent alarming ignorance and disregard for church teachings, not only those emanating from Vatican II but also those on the dogmatic precedence conciliar efforts have over individual utterances and pronouncements, including those of popes.  Due to affirmation of the Spirit’s guidance across a large body of individuals rather than just a single individual, the church teaches councils’ doctrinal efforts carry more weight than individual pronouncements.  Thus, the Second Vatican Council’s teachings should be considered extremely binding, not things to dismiss casually based on personal preference or disagreement. 

Like it or not, Vatican II resulted in sixteen documents that present binding (albeit not infallible) church teachings: four constitutions, three declarations and nine decrees.  They do not include Humanae Vitae, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Mulieris Dignatatem or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, lesser binding (and also not infallible) teachings issued via papal encyclicals from Paul VI and John Paul II.  They do not include Inter Insigniores which is a lesser binding (and not infallible) teaching issued via declaration made by a Vatican office rather than a council.  For those unfamiliar with those latter documents, they contain teachings on birth control, priest gender requirements and the role of women - topics from which many church leaders permit no dissent.  Why do current leaders tolerate no dissent for lesser binding teachings while dissenting from more binding conciliar teachings?   

Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council was not about ushering in the new and discarding the old.  It was about reclaiming the old, looking back to original Christian traditions and appropriately adapting them for the Church in the Modern World.  During its multi-millennial history, the church took many small, seemingly valid tangential deviations that cumulatively set the church off course.  Vatican II corrected course, returning to that which Jesus originally entrusted to his followers.    

The statement about communion reception is particularly puzzling for a few reasons.  First, Cardinal Llovera feels that kneeling is THE appropriate way to respect and adore Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.  Going back in time, standing was a sign of respect; kneeling symbolized subservience.  Regardless, is there really a universal way for someone to show respect?  How can someone think to impose a universal “ultimate” when respect is conveyed in diverse ways depending upon individuals and cultures?    

Second, the Eucharist re-actualizes the Last Supper.  The church teaches that priests represent the person of Jesus in this effort.  At the Last Supper, the disciples reclined at table with Jesus; they didn’t kneel.  Scripture suggests Jesus was the only person who knelt at the Last Supper, as he made himself a servant to wash the disciples’ feet.  He told them to do likewise.  He even chastised Peter, who felt uncomfortable with Jesus’ radical act of humility.  Yet Jesus told Peter accepting this seemingly inverted humility was essential for inheritance in God’s kingdom. 

If we imitate Jesus, shouldn’t priests, acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) during the Mass, kneel during communion – not before the host but as they serve the people approaching them for reception?  At the Last Supper Jesus didn’t say, “Get down on your knees and adore me or you cannot share in my inheritance.”  He blessed and broke bread, sharing with friends.  Therefore, at a minimum, shouldn’t people approach the Eucharist in communal friendship rather than servile adoration? 

This brings up another point of confusion.  Jesus told the disciples and apostles “Follow me.”  He didn’t say “Adore me.”   It seems many people expend great efforts trying to perfectly “adore” Jesus and fall far short following him.  Adoration is significantly easier than emulation.  

Yet scripture indicates our judgment will not be based upon how much we adored Jesus, or passing an exam on the church’s dogmatic teachings, but rather how well we followed Jesus.  When I was hungry, did you feed me?  When I was thirsty, did you give me something to drink?  When I was naked, did you clothe me? When in prison, did you visit me?  When a stranger in a strange land, did you welcome me?  Did you radically forgive and radically include?  If I follow Christ, shouldn’t I kneel before the poor I serve at the food pantry more readily than kneeling before the host?